Dixon

MEMORANDUM ***

Latrice Dixon appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Because the parties are familiar with the facts and proceedings below, we do not recite them here. We affirm.

Though the district court deferred ruling on qualified immunity, see Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), 1 we nonetheless find that substantia] evidence supports the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant officers. The officers considered Dixon’s statements and actions in light of the environment where they approached her, and we consider these factors cumulatively, not in isolation. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Dixon was alone on the beach, at night, and was clearly aggravated with the officers, who were concerned that a woman of her size could cause them harm. Prior to the officers’ search, Dixon had put her hands in her jacket pockets. Avoiding the “divide-and-conquer” mode of analysis suggested by Dixon, we find that the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the jury’s verdict. See Pavao v. Pagay,…